§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
§ 1.30 a.m.
§ Mr. David Mudd (Falmouth and Cambourne)In addressing myself to this important subject, I do not overlook the substantial and very welcome support I have received for an Early Day Motion 1538 on this topic, including the support of hon. Members with port interests on both sides of the House. But to set my basic case in its true perspective, I shall state what I regard as being two vital national and international considerations—first, Channel safety, and second, the need to stimulate cargo handling growth for United Kingdom ship owners and United Kingdom ports.
In his important Adjournment debate on 28th July this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) called for greater control and greater safety surveillance in the congested waters of the English Channel. In his reply, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred to measures which, he said, could and would be introduced. But he went on to say:
We hope that once this system starts to operate, there will be a substantial drop in the number of ships using the lanes in the wrong direction ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1971; Vol. 822, c. 748.]With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, I suggest that he was then talking in terms of first aid at a time when thought should be given to the application of major surgery. What is needed in the interests of Channel safety is to find an effective way of reducing the number of ships in the Channel at any one time, particularly those deep-draught loaded giants jam-packed with valuable and potentially lethal cargoes.I refer now to Thames Television's pertinent and responsible "This Week" programme on 27th May, 1971, which dealt in some depth with the problems and dangers in the Channel. As the programme showed, the Dover Straits are reaching a state of violently congested constipation, with about 800 ships passing daily in both directions, and about three accidents a week.
Such a toll of accidents would be bad enough were it restricted to small coasters, but this constant toll of accidents extends to supper-tankers and the ever-increasing number of giant container ships which threaten to make the "Torrey Canyon" look like a child's super-toy and which have the lack of manoeuvrability and lack of stopping power of a demented bull in a supermarket on a Saturday afternoon. As this 1539 situation degenerates and becomes more serious, as constantly it does and will, practical methods must be found to keep these dangerous and unmanoeuvrable ships out of these congested waters in the first place.
The second major need is to create a new international stimulus to the ports of the United Kingdom to offset the effects of Common Market entry. On page 413 of his important survey, "British Shipping and World Competition", Dr. S. G. Sturmey warns of the diminution of the traditional trade to the United Kingdom if the United Kingdom and Europe were to become a mere generic destination for ships upon British entry into the E.E.C. The Common Market, he goes on to say, is unlikely to add any great new opportunities to British ocean shipping.
Here, then, is the first contention of my argument. If the United Kingdom is to be immersed in the Common Market, convenience will dictate the consigning of ships and cargoes to Continental ports rather than to those of the United Kingdom unless and until we can reach the situation in which the facilities of the West Coast of the United Kingdom at least equal those to be found on the western and north-western coasts of Europe.
Secondly, we must not lose sight of the fact that once international shippers are committed to destination routes to a united Europe, they will not readily begin to reallocate themselves to alternative destinations. The point is, therefore, self-evident that the maximum British containerisation trans-shipment facilities must be established and fully operative before world shipping begins to home itself on the ports of Western and Northwestern Europe.
That belief is not personal to myself. It has been reinforced by no less an authority than Mr. J. P. Rosegaarde Bisschop, Director of the Netherlands Container Association. He has gone on record as prophesying that when the mammoth third generation container ships go into service—and we are within perhaps five years of seeing the dawn of third generation traffic—there is every possibility that they will seek and utilise a port on the west coast of England rather than use the North Sea.
1540 Therefore, if we are to look towards an alternative port on the West Coast of England, my submission is that the only port that can reasonably be considered is the Port of Falmouth. Accordingly, I ask: what can the Port of Falmouth offer to answer the threefold demands of safety, ease of access and strategic positioning to attract the Transatlantic cargoes?
I therefore summarise some of the many definite advantages of the Port of Falmouth for the development of such a containerisation facility. First, as a custom-built port utilising industrial waste land, the cost per virgin berth would be infinitely less than the cost of buying, demolishing, rebuilding and extending London, Southampton, Rotterdam or Hamburg. Therefore, in terms of money invested for a direct return, Falmouth is the best buy for port development.
Secondly, Falmouth is a deep-water port at all states of tide. It has no necessity for locks and the various other navigational hazards which create delays and potential dangers to deep-draught shipping. The deep water at Falmouth allows direct and prompt access for the arrival and departure of all ships, with the economic attraction of there being no delays to the vital speed of turn-around times and the added safety attraction of unrestricted room for manoeuvre.
Any Transatlantic ship using the Port of Falmouth rather than Rotterdam would knock 33½ days off the time for the return round trip to the United States, thus increasing ship availability by 3.936 round voyages every year, thereby attracting the maximum utilisation of ships and cargo space. Falmouth is the only undeveloped deep-water port in the United Kingdom which is able to accommodate deep-draught ships without! hindrance, interference or danger to other shipping.
The development of a container terminal at the Port of Falmouth would improve the financial revenue of the port and the port facilities to such an extent that soon it would be translated into improved and increased services to all the other forms of shipping that currently and traditionally use Falmouth, thus assisting the economy and the employment prospects of an area of high potential but, alas, so far, of very little development.
1541 I must ask two questions which are perhaps against my own basic case. First, is there any need for a further container terminal in the United Kingdom and, second, would the emergence and establishment of Falmouth lower the profitability of other container ports? For the answers to those key questions, I turn to the publications of no less an authority than the National Ports Council itself. First, the Council's deep sea trade forecast for 1973, reported in its Port Unit Transport Statistics for 1969, makes it abundantly clear that even the vast impetus in the provision of additional berths elsewhere would still make a trans-shipment terminal at Falmouth a useful adjunct, without taking traffic away from existing major United Kingdom ports.
This is underlined still further in the Council's Annual Report for 1969, which, after stressing, quite rightly the vital national importance of the increased exports of manufactured products, goes on to stress that the potential of the major British container ports has hardly yet been tapped. Falmouth would certainly attract trade to the United Kingdom that does not otherwise exist, although obviously shippers are unwilling to commit such statements to paper while they are contracted to Continental ports.
In conclusion, therefore, I re-assert my personal reasons for wishing the Falmouth container terminal scheme well. First, it will contribute substantially to the decongestion and subsequently to the safety of other ships using the English Channel. Second, the scheme will provide an important outlet for overseas currency earning facilities to the United Kingdom. Third, the spin-off estimate of both finance and employment will be a valuable contribution to the economic and employment prospects of a very difficult area of Britain.
Fourth, it will provide a vital new opportunity for British shipping at a time when it must be threatened with the imminence of the Common Market. Fifth, it cannot be claimed that the establishment of the Falmouth facility will offset the potential of other ports when, on the admission of the National Ports Council, that potential is presently both untapped and in any case the provision is likely to be inadequate by 1973. Sixth, the establishment of Falmouth can only satisfy a genuine existing European 1542 demand which would otherwise be lost to the British economy, British industry and British work people.
While accepting that it is the rôle—nay, the duty—of the Ports Council and the Department of the Environment to act in the national interest and in the interests of commercial viability and the preservation of amenity, I hope that my hon. Friend will at least let me glimpse the subject headings on the criteria yardstick against which this exciting scheme will soon be measured.
§ 1.44 a.m.
§ Mr. Robert Hicks (Bodmin)I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) on raising the subject of (his important development, which could have many desirable consequences, not least for the economy of the West Country, particularly Cornwall. Most of Cornwall is in the south-west development area and the remainder within the Plymouth intermediate area.
My hon. Friend mentioned possible spin-off effects. May I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that in pursuing their development area policies the Government place great emphasis on improving the infrastructure of the regions. In the context of Cornwall this means, above all, improved communications. We are confident of a stepping up in the rate of progress of road building in the West Country. I regret to say that we are less confident about the future of the railway to the west of Plymouth. I am informed that at least 8 per cent. of the traffic generated by this proposed port development would be rail-fed. This most certainly would play a significant part in helping retain our rail links in Cornwall—in other words, helping to retain and improve the basic attraction of the South-West Region. For this reason and others outlined by my hon. Friend, I have great pleasure in supporting him.
§ 1.46 a.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)If anyone in the House had any doubt about the wide interest in this imaginative project, that doubt would have been ended by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd). I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend on the vigorous way in which he has drawn attention to the 1543 potential advantages of such a scheme in Falmouth harbour. I had already taken note of the terms of the Early Day Motion which he put down last month and which attracted a large number of signatures. I can certainly sympathise with the natural desire of local interests in Falmouth to encourage a development which, in their view, will benefit the economy of the South-West Region generally. I well understand their desire to seek additional employment in an area which, as I know well from personal experience, has a high unemployment level, particularly marked in the winter months.
The Falmouth Container Terminal Company's Private Bill received Royal Assent on 17th February, but the company still has to obtain authorisation of the project by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment under Section 9 of the Harbours Act, 1964. I understand that the company applied to the Secretary of State on 13th May and, in accordance with the Harbours Act, my Department is responsible for consulting the National Ports Council which is now in process of considering the application. Its recommendation must be received before my right hon. Friend can reach a decision, and we have not had its recommendation. For that reason it is not possible, indeed it would be quite improper, for me to pass any judgment on whether or not the scheme stands a good chance of being authorised by my right hon. Friend. However, it might be helpful if, as my hon. Friend suggested, I set out some of the matters about which we shall need to be satisfied before reaching any final decision.
I emphasise that, however imaginative this or any other project may appear to the promoters, the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to satisfy himself on all these matters before giving a favourable decision. First and foremost we shall need to be satisfied, on the advice of the National Ports Council, on the economics of the proposal. In short, will this project be viable in the sense that an adequate return can be earned on the large investment involved? The answer turns primarily on what demand there is or is likely to be, for container facilities at Falmouth.
We should need to have firm evidence of this demand: which shipping lines 1544 would actually use Falmouth and on what routes would their container services operate; what are the quantities of traffic which are forecast for these routes; what size of ships would be used; to the extent that the case for the provision of an entirely new container port at Falmouth rests on the expectation of the emergence of a new generation of very large container ships which would take advantage of the deep water at Falmouth, what evidence is there that such ships are in fact likely to be in service within the time scale encompassed by the present proposals?
Then, again, we have to ask and be satisfied whether prospective users would be prepared to undertake contractual commitments relating to the use of the facilities and the rates which they would have to pay to ensure that the total revenue was adequate. There is also the question of raising the necessary capital, and again the Secretary of State will need to know how precisely it is proposed to raise the very substantial funds involved. On the engineering side, we shall need to be satisfied that the facilities proposed are fully capable of meeting forecast demand and how they are to cope with the double handling of trans-shipment traffic. I can tell my hon. Friend that these are only a few of the questions on which we would need to be satisfied before reaching a conclusion.
I want to turn now to two or three specific points he raised. My hon. Friend suggested, for example, that by siphoning off large container ships to Falmouth the general safety of shipping in the English Channel would be improved. I appreciate his thinking in this matter but I am not quite sure that I follow his logic. First, the giant ships that he mentioned are not container ships at all. They are super tankers and large bulk carriers and these, of course, would not be affected by the Falmouth plans. They will remain in the Channel whatever may happen at Falmouth.
Then again, if the deep sea container ships go to Falmouth, so as to trans-ship into smaller vessels bound for Europe or other United Kingdom ports, then the total number of vessels in the Channel will not decrease. It might very well increase for that reason. As I can testify from recent experience in the Channel myself, it is often the number of ships 1545 in the Channel at any one time, rather than their size or tonnage, which may give rise to the navigational hazards to which my hon. Friend rightly drew attention.
Secondly, my hon. Friend argued that the project will earn foreign currency. If that were so, I should certainly be very glad, but I must remind him that this argument can be valid only if it is demonstrated that additional export traffic can be generated at Falmouth which would not otherwise be attracted to some other United Kingdom ports.
My hon. Friend also suggested, and was supported strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), that this project would add significantly to the jobs available in the South-West Region both when the port is ready to operate and during the construction period. I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxieties on this point and such jobs would certainly be welcome. But they would not by themselves justify major capital expenditure for which there was no convincing long-term case on economic grounds.
I turn specifically to the question of containers. I am not sure that I can quite agree with the suggestion that we have, as it were, only just touched the fringes of container traffic. The United Kingdom already handles more container traffic than any other Northern European country. In 1970, we handled nearly as much container traffic as the rest of Northern Europe put together. If, however, we do decide that it is right to add to the container facilities in the United Kingdom, we shall have to consider first whether it is right to build an entirely new container port, and if so whether Falmouth is the right place for it. We shall also have to consider the fact that major container terminals already exist or are being planned at, for example, Seaforth in Liverpool, at Southampton, at Tilbury, at Greenock and at Felixstowe.
Moreover, while I am as anxious as anyone else that this country should keep in the forefront of those countries which are providing up-to-date port facilities for container ships, it is vital not to exaggerate the significance of container traffic in relation to our total cargo carryings. For example, in 1969–70 total container traffic in and out of United Kingdom ports amounted to 12 million tons 1546 against a total of 107 million tons of general cargo and 214 million tons of bulk cargo.
I should also recall to my hon. Friend, without in any way underestimating the significance of container vessels, that there are many other important developments in cargo carrying. There are the huge bulk carriers for liquid and dry bulk cargoes, the roll-on/roll-off and drive-on/drive-off ships. There are what are known as LASH-lighter aboard ship—and BACAT—barges aboard catamarans—and so on. It would be a mistake therefore, at a time when the extent to which more container traffic will expand is by no means certain, to over-provide facilities of a specialised nature for which insufficient traffic could eventually be found.
In conclusion, I turn to my hon. Friend's point about the Common Market. He argued that construction of a container terminal at Falmouth would offset the disadvantages which he imagines will otherwise be suffered by the shipping and ports industries as and when we enter the Community. He claims that ships and cargoes would be consigned to the Continent rather than to the United Kingdom and that this would become an established arrangement.
I have already pointed out that the United Kingdom handles more container traffic, including deep-sea traffic, than any other North European country and that expanded port facilities for this have already been authorised. The Government see no reason whatsoever for fearing that deep sea container ships carrying cargoes destined for Britain are likely to be diverted to Continental ports. What matters here is not the Common Market but that our ports should offer the kind of service which alone will persuade shipowners and shippers that it is in their commercial interest to continue to use our ports.
But the Common Market will, in the Government's judgment, offer far greater opportunities to our shippers, shipowners and ports industries as a whole. This applies to Falmouth as to everywhere else. Indeed, we are convinced that our economy as a whole will do very much better inside the Common Market than outside. To that extent, the best hope for Falmouth, Cornwall and, indeed, the whole South-West Region is that we 1547 should be partners within an expanding and prosperous Community from which we should derive more resources for regional policies, including the benefit of the South-West.
To sum up, I very much welcome the widespread interest shown in these proposals and the eloquent way in which both my hon. Friends have supported them tonight. I assure them that the points made in the debate, and in particular Falmouth's advantages as a natural deep water harbour, will not be overlooked. It is certainly no part of the Government's philosophy to discourage any new private enterprise project which 1548 can be shown to have real prospects of benefiting the community. The onus in the end rests on the sponsors to make their case and to satisfy the National Ports Council and the Secretary of State, if they can. However, I give the assurance that, as soon as we have received the advice of the National Ports Council and any other information that the Secretary of State may require, there will be no delay in making the decision and informing the company and my hon. Friends.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock a.m.